Hack Patooey:But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Right, like you're really going to go do research on your own. You're going to browse a few internet sites, at best. The ones which say what you already believe, whatever that is, will seem the most credible to you. The ones that disagree with you will seem like crackpot morons. 15 whole minutes of your day gone....however would you recover?

untaken_name:Right, like you're really going to go do research on your own. You're going to browse a few internet sites, at best. The ones which say what you already believe, whatever that is, will seem the most credible to you. The ones that disagree with you will seem like crackpot morons. 15 whole minutes of your day gone....however would you recover?

Yup, because everyone should suddenly become climatologists and do their own experimentations to form their opinion.

Unless you happen to be a climatologist, then you are at the mercy of trusting someone else's data and conclusions.

That being said, I don't think anyone at this point can really claim the climate is not changing. There could be some debate over what's causing it to change. But if you ask me, that debate is pointless. Trying to be 'greener' can do nothing but good for everyone in the long run whether we are causing the climate change or not.

Hack Patooey:But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

MyRandomName:Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

I never got why the hell families with small kids will lemming themselves down to Disney World in July to pay through the nose for a vacation where either you're shvitzing like Patrick Ewing or getting monsooned on. Screw that. Santa's Village and Storyland in New Hampshire FTW. And if 80 is too hot for you there's always Mount Washington.

I guess I should move back to Eureka. It's supposed to be 104 here today. It was 107 yesterday. And I was lucky enough to spend the afternoon working in a mc mansion where they couldn't afford to turn the AC below about 80 or so. Who knew that high ceilings, lots of glass, and too many rooms would be expensive to try and keep cool in this climate?

But seriously, I'm not moving back to Eureka ever. Go outside on a June day, and it's in the low fifties and drizzling? Not for me.

Repo Man:I guess I should move back to Eureka. It's supposed to be 104 here today. It was 107 yesterday. And I was lucky enough to spend the afternoon working in a mc mansion where they couldn't afford to turn the AC below about 80 or so. Who knew that high ceilings, lots of glass, and too many rooms would be expensive to try and keep cool in this climate?

But seriously, I'm not moving back to Eureka ever. Go outside on a June day, and it's in the low fifties and drizzling? Not for me.

I spent a couple of weeks up in Trinidad one July, and I think the warmest day was about 70

/and the day I had to leave, I drove into Redding and it was 112//I prefer the coast, personally

indarwinsshadow:MyRandomName: Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

MithrandirBooga:indarwinsshadow: MyRandomName: Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

Hack Patooey:But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

I don't think anyone says its a myth, what most say and what's arrogant is that saying man is the sole cause for the warming.

I'm leaning more towards the axis tilt theory for warming especially after watching the NatGeo doc with evidence backing it up. And no, the axis isn't tilting because the ice is melting, orbital rotation doesn't work like that.

indarwinsshadow:MithrandirBooga: indarwinsshadow: MyRandomName: Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

There's thousands and thousands of articles on the internet that can prove whatever you possibly believe in. And that's the point. It's argument and anger over nothing.

So you say the sun is experiencing less activity. I prove you're wrong, and you counter with two articles that have nothing to do with solar activity...

Brilliant.

Anyway, here's why your counter is also amazingly wrong. Global Warming, surprisingly enough, deals with global temperatures. The "Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago" crowd are obsessed with a single data point, atmospheric temperature, which is only *part* of the globe. The majority of temperature increases are happening in the earths oceans. As it turns out, water holds way more heat than air due to it being a better conductor. http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Please try to cite actual science next time, instead of derp from The Daily Fail and Yahoo.

MarkEC:Please show a time in recorded history that the climate didn't change. It would be more surprising if the climate remained static over a few decades.

I believe the problem is its rate of change. But that isn't the main point of my post. My point was, we can still try to be as 'green' as possible, whether the climate is changing or not. I don't think climate change has to be an excuse to make things more efficient and clean.

indarwinsshadow:MithrandirBooga: indarwinsshadow: MyRandomName: Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

Kimpak:MarkEC: Please show a time in recorded history that the climate didn't change. It would be more surprising if the climate remained static over a few decades.

I believe the problem is its rate of change. But that isn't the main point of my post. My point was, we can still try to be as 'green' as possible, whether the climate is changing or not. I don't think climate change has to be an excuse to make things more efficient and clean.

It does matter though. The price of fuel is currently based on the cost of finding, extracting, processing, and transporting it. If burning fuel is causing climate change, then the costs associated with climate change should be factored into its price. Otherwise we're effectively subsidizing fuel by externalizing the costs to the future.

If we don't factor that in, then there is a strong financial incentive to deny that the climate is changing, or that if it is, that the use of carbon based fuels is the cause. Going green isn't free, and while it saves money in the long term, the costs of climate change make the magnitude of those savings extremely uncertain. This is the biggest problem with combating climate change, in my opinion. To really cause a shift from carbon to other greener fuels would require an increase in carbon based fuels by factoring in the future costs, which are extremely unknown. And even if everyone agreed on them, there's still a huge incentive for people to ignore them and produce cheap fuel for short term financial gain.

I'm a huge environmentalist, and I strongly believe that people are impacting the climate, but I can't claim to be optimistic on the issue.

Kimpak:MarkEC: Please show a time in recorded history that the climate didn't change. It would be more surprising if the climate remained static over a few decades.

I believe the problem is its rate of change. But that isn't the main point of my post. My point was, we can still try to be as 'green' as possible, whether the climate is changing or not. I don't think climate change has to be an excuse to make things more efficient and clean.

But it shouldn't be used as an excuse to artificially drive up the cost of existing energy sources for some "greater good" when there are still two billion people on the planet living in squalor and in need of inexpensive energy to raise their standard of living.

If you really want to reduce the long-term negative impact of mankind on the planet, and base your approach for doing so on the strongest available data, then keeping energy prices low is a priority. And the added side-effect is that you actually make billions of people's lives better, which is a plus if your not one of the species-self-loathing types.

It amazes me that people seem to think that the industrial revolution had absolutely nothing to do with how quickly the climate is changing compared to all of the other massive rounds of climate change that the earth has experienced in its existence.

justGreg:But it shouldn't be used as an excuse to artificially drive up the cost of existing energy sources for some "greater good" when there are still two billion people on the planet living in squalor and in need of inexpensive energy to raise their standard of living.

If you really want to reduce the long-term negative impact of mankind on the planet, and base your approach for doing so on the strongest available data, then keeping energy prices low is a priority. And the added side-effect is that you actually make billions of people's lives better, which is a plus if your not one of the species-self-loathing types.

I agree with most of what you said, but it's somewhat dishonest to write off the costs of shifting agriculture and infrastructure, rising sea levels, and redistribution of water resources as just the "greater good". These things would have real, and potentially incredibly high costs associated with them, both financial and human. The problem is the uncertainty of these costs, which is currently several orders of magnitude. If they're on the high end, then the consequences of doing nothing would be far worse than the benefits of temporarily keeping energy costs low. Of course, if they're on the low end, then you're probably right.

So, knowing those costs is important. And if it turns out they're going to be high, then raising the costs of fossil fuels to be more honest and truly capitalistic would help spur the development of alternative fuels.

Mainer here. We typically have lows of 40 and highs of 85 this time of year. All four seasons in a day practically. Weather manipulation is old news. Lets just admit it exists, so we can use the tech to push cloud cover out to sea, and therefore destroy the chance of a heatwave? Maybe even disrupt tornado conditions in the plains?

MithrandirBooga:indarwinsshadow: MithrandirBooga: indarwinsshadow: MyRandomName: Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

There's thousands and thousands of articles on the internet that can prove whatever you possibly believe in. And that's the point. It's argument and anger over nothing.

So you say the sun is experiencing less activity. I prove you're wrong, and you counter with two articles that have nothing to do with solar activity...

Brilli ...

Ok. Let's put this into terms you can grasp. I really really really don't care. I don't care what your opinion is. I don't give a crap about the myriad of articles that get published for or against this. I. Don't. Care.Clear now? Do we really need to continue to go on with this, or can you finally accept that I don't care because fark publishes this stuff week after week, the same believers come on and lay on the graphs and insults, the non believers laugh and say "how do you function being that you're so stupid". It's just a bunch of children arguing back and forth.

indarwinsshadow:Ok. Let's put this into terms you can grasp. I really really really don't care. I don't care what your opinion is. I don't give a crap about the myriad of articles that get published for or against this. I. Don't. Care.Clear now? Do we really need to continue to go on with this, or can you finally accept that I don't care because fark publishes this stuff week after week, the same believers come on and lay on the graphs and insults, the non believers laugh and say "how do you function being that you're so stupid". It's just a bunch of children arguing back and forth.

farking snooooorrrrreeeeeeee......

Ah, you didn't care so much that you went ahead and posted 3 times, once even looking up 2 "articles" which you thought proved your ignorant opinion correct.

You got your ass handed to you by facts, and now you're pretending you don't care about the issue at all. What are you, 12?

indarwinsshadow:Ok. Let's put this into terms you can grasp. I really really really don't care. I don't care what your opinion is. I don't give a crap about the myriad of articles that get published for or against this. I. Don't. Care.Clear now? Do we really need to continue to go on with this, or can you finally accept that I don't care because fark publishes this stuff week after week, the same believers come on and lay on the graphs and insults, the non believers laugh and say "how do you function being that you're so stupid". It's just a bunch of children arguing back and forth.

indarwinsshadow:MyRandomName: Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

Actually, a slight increase in the luminosity of the sun would result in a slight cooling of the earth. As I recall, the additional UV from the sun would result in creation of more ozone in the upper atmosphere, which breaks down greenhouse gases like methane.

/Learned about this from the advisor who finally convinced Bush that global warming is real, about 2/3rds from human production of greenhouse gasses, 1/3rd from natural causes.//No indication that the luminosity of the sun has changed enough to make any difference, although this is an extremely complicated subject and something might be going on that we're not aware of. But, highly unlikely, nothing to compare with the effects of dumping trillion of tons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

enemy of the state:Actually, a slight increase in the luminosity of the sun would result in a slight cooling of the earth. As I recall, the additional UV from the sun would result in creation of more ozone in the upper atmosphere, which breaks down greenhouse gases like methane.

/Learned about this from the advisor who finally convinced Bush that global warming is real, about 2/3rds from human production of greenhouse gasses, 1/3rd from natural causes.//No indication that the luminosity of the sun has changed enough to make any difference, although this is an extremely complicated subject and something might be going on that we're not aware of. But, highly unlikely, nothing to compare with the effects of dumping trillion of tons of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

How big of an effect would that be? By far the majority of methane is broken down in the troposphere, while the ozone layer is up in the stratosphere. Not saying you're wrong, but I'd be surprised if the effects of methane reduction outweigh those of increased solar output. Particularly since ozone is a greenhouse gas itself.

indarwinsshadow:Ok. Let's put this into terms you can grasp. I really really really don't care. I don't care what your opinion is. I don't give a crap about the myriad of articles that get published for or against this. I. Don't. Care.Clear now? Do we really need to continue to go on with this, or can you finally accept that I don't care because fark publishes this stuff week after week, the same believers come on and lay on the graphs and insults, the non believers laugh and say "how do you function being that you're so stupid". It's just a bunch of children arguing back and forth.

Since you don't care so much... you come here and argue about it... then complain about arguing..

indarwinsshadow:Interesting theory. My own theory is that giant glowing ball of gas 93 million miles away occasionally puts out more solar radiation, which in turn heats the earth a few degrees up or down depending on the output (giving some sort of cooling or heating effect in the process, crazy as that sounds.)

Hi. You seem to be some dumb piece of crap who incessantly makes things up, gets proven wrong, then yells loudly about how little he cares about his level of ignorance.

I mean, I don't know anything about hockey. And yet, I manage to avoid wandering into hockey threads and posting 43 times about how hockey players are dumb because they should pick up the puck with their hands because it's safer than pushing it on the ice with that stick thingy. (Then posting 21 more times about how I really, really double-don't care about these "rules" that people keep citing.)

You have a different approach. A loud, stupid approach that would embarrass you if you only had the self-awareness to realize how shamefully stupid you are, and/or the dignity to want to conduct yourself like something resembling a decent human being.

Example quote from one of these primary studies: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%. The result is the same if one quantifies the solar variation using galactic cosmic ray fluxes (for which the analysis can be extended back to 1953) or the most accurate total solar irradiance data composite. The rise in the global mean air surface temperatures is predominantly associated with a linear increase that represents the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic well-mixed greenhouse gases and aerosols, although, in recent decades, there is also a considerable contribution by a relative lack of major volcanic eruptions. The best estimate is that the anthropogenic factors contribute 75% of the rise since 1987, with an uncertainty range (set by the 2σ confidence level using an AR(1) noise model) of 49-160%; thus, the uncertainty is large, but we can state that at least half of the temperature trend comes from the linear term and that this term could explain the entire rise"

MyRandomName:Hack Patooey: But but but, I was told global warming was a myth. Someone please tellme what to believe so I dont have to do research on my own.

Well, a new study out of Canada is linking CFCs more closely to the warming/cooling trends of the last 3 years than. Global Warming Scientists still can't explain the cooling in the earlier part of last century (they blame aerosols, but as there is no data it is merely conjecture, nor can they explain the last 15 years). The CFC study may point to the climate pattern the last 30 years (data they have on CFCs).

C02 still contributes, but it may not be the primary drivers as many would like you to believe.

BHShaman:It was 95+ and 90%+ Humidity here in Maine for over a week.damn hot

That would put the dew point above 91 F....

Keep in mind dew points over 80 are infrequent in most of the US...and 85 would break records. The highest ever recorded (worldwide) was on the Saudi coast, at around 95 F. That puts the heat index over 170 F...